Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The effective filing date of this application is acknowledged as 02/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 is in is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 35 U.S.C. 103, filed 09/15/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amended material of Claim 21 is now taught by Gettings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 33-34, 37, 41-44, 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims listed all ultimately depend from other claims which have been cancelled. Being dependent on a canceled claim render’s the scope of a claim to be indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has presumed dependencies which follow from the historical dependency of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 25, 30, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder (US 20220250658 A1) , previously of record, further in view of Priev, (US 20190051178 A1), previously of record, and Gettings (US 20150367513 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Blonder, Priev, and Gettings respectively.
Regarding Claim 21,
Blonder discloses the following limitations,
A computer-implemented method of managing a robot fleet, the method comprising: obtaining features of a plurality of robot missions; (Paragraph [0167], “Optionally, the mission engine 230 splits the inspection mission to a plurality of sub-missions where each of the sub-missions is directed to acquire a respective one of a plurality of portions of the required inspection data. The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions” – where sub-missions are themselves missions, and computing their parameters thus obtains the features of a plurality of missions, and Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute operation instructions accordingly for each of the plurality of selected capable autonomous vehicles” - because the plurality of robots art of a collective robot management system, these robots are thus part of a robot fleet)
obtaining capabilities of a plurality of robots of the robot fleet; (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions and may further select a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles 202 which are each identified, based on analysis of their operational parameters with respect to the mission parameters, as capable to carry out a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions” – where operational parameters are capabilities, and identifying such parameters is thus obtaining capabilities of a plurality of robots.)
selecting a robot among the plurality of robots to perform a selected robot mission among the plurality of robot missions based on the obtained capabilities of the selected robot and the obtained features of the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions and may further select a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles 202 which are each identified, based on analysis of their operational parameters with respect to the mission parameters, as capable to carry out a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions” -– where, in selecting a plurality of robot, the system selects a robot)
controlling the selected robot to perform the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute operation instructions accordingly for each of the plurality of selected capable autonomous vehicles 202 to operate the respective selected capable autonomous vehicle 202 to carry out its respective inspection mission” )
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, receiving mission feedback for the selected robot mission from the selected robot (Paragraph [0172], “As shown at 116, which is an optional step, the mission engine 230 may initiate one or more additional inspection missions to acquire additional inspection data in case the acquired inspection data is incompliant, for example, partial, incomplete, insufficient, insufficiently accurate, under quality and/or the like.” – where, because Mission Engine 230 acts on inspection data, which constitutes mission feedback, the Mission Engine 230 receives the mission feedback via the connections shown in Figure 2.)
storing the received mission feedback to a database, (Figure 2, Element 224, Storage, where the storage is a memory associated with Mission Engine 230, Paragraph [0110], “For example, the processor(s) 222 may execute a mission engine 230” – where processors are coupled to a memory in a computer, and, are part of the Mission Management System 200, paragraph [0106], “The mission management system 200 may comprise a network interface 220 for connecting to a network 208, a processor(s) 222 for executing the process 100 and a storage 224 for code storage (program store) and/or data store.” – ergo, any data received by Mission Engine 230 is in fact data received by a computer, and thus, is stored in a database while being processed)
analyzing the received mission feedback (Paragraph [0172], “In particular, the analysis of the acquired inspection data may be done compared and/or with respect to the required inspection data as determined in step 104 to evaluate the compliance of the actually acquired inspection data with the computed required inspection data.” – where completing evaluation of the inspection data thus means the system will perform an analysis of feedback)
sending a result of the analysis to an operation management system (As noted by applicant in Paragraph [0181], “Operations management system 805 may include many systems and modules” – and where the Mission Engine 230 includes, but is not entirely defined by, an information analysis module, and, once an information analysis is complete, this result is used for further management of the system (Figure 1, step 116, step 104), the internal transmission of data from one part of Mission Engine 230 to another part of Mission Engine 230 constitutes sending the analysis result to an operation management system, where the aspects of Mission Engine 230 that carry out operations, create missions, may be understood as the operation management system, or, as an alternative interpretation, the entirety of Mission Management System 200 of Figure 2 can interpreted as the operation management system, and again, with the internal transfer of data to it from other parts within it.)
However, Blonder does not disclose the following limitation,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot: receiving, from an external application, an alarm that indicates an event …
determining whether the alarm is a critical alarm; and upon determining the alarm is a critical alarm: generating, responsive to determining that the alarm is a critical alarm, a critical mission, for the alarm; and instructing, responsive to determining that the alarm Is a critical alarm: the selected robot to abort the selected robot mission and to perform the critical mission
However, this is taught by Priev, which further teaches that robots can help each other in a collaborative safety system (Paragraph [0016], “an apparatus for safety collaboration in autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles”) based on degrees of an emergency alarm (Paragraph [0069], “It is noted that as regards classification of an emergency, for example, a scale of five major levels may be defined, such as “possible emergency”, “emergency—low risk”, “emergency—medium risk”, “emergency—high risk” and “critical condition”) where these degrees bear on if a vehicle determines if an alarm is a critical alarm (Paragraph [0075], “From block 410, process 400 may proceed to block 415, where the ad-Responder may analyze the received request and respond with options. For example, in embodiments, the ad-Responder may consider the mass and type of the vehicle in the emergency condition, the number of passengers in each vehicle, its own mechanical capabilities, such as its weight, speed and power, the value of its own cargo and possible impact, its own current task or mission in comparison with the degree of the emergency, any legal aspects, such as, for example, if it is allowed to provide the required type of emergency assistance, or whether if it does would it be insured as to damage, etc.” – where a critical alarm is a resistance request of sufficient urgency so as to require an active response, and is acknowledged externally from the course of regular operations) and abandoning a current mission to perform the different critical mission (Paragraph [0072], “From block 330, process 300 may proceed to block 340, where the vehicle experiencing the emergency condition may receive confirmation from the responding vehicles that one, or many, of them will implement the course of remedial action. … Finally, from block 350, process 300 may proceed to block 360, where the vehicle undergoing the emergency may notify all responders that the emergency condition has ended (due to a successful response action), so that they may return to their normal operational mode. At 360, process 300 may terminate.” – where a normal operation is aborted for the period of time that they are responding to the critical alarm), where each of the robots are selected for their respective missions in a plurality of missions, and each robot is capable of independent analysis (Figure 2A, Ad-Controllers 215 and 265 are both placed in a vehicle) such that a requesting robot can select which robot performs help, selected from a list of potential helping robots which have each determined if they can or should help (Paragraph [0071], “It is here noted that the responses received at block 320 may include suggestions for remedial action. If that is the case, then the ad-controller may select the most optimized/best proposal received.” and Paragraph [0076], “In embodiments, based on such external and internal analyses, the ad-Responder may decide if and how to help. For example, assuming the ad-Responder has no passengers, no valuable cargo, and is not then acting on a critical mission, there is a high probability that the ad-Responder may help”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mission planning of Blonder with interruptions as taught by Priev, as this allows a fleet of vehicles otherwise engaged in normal operation to perform emergency services to one another, improving the safety and reliability of the fleet (Paragraph [0033], “In embodiments, methods of collaboration between CA/AD vehicles in case of an emergency condition experienced by one or more of them may be implemented to enable safety capabilities that are not achievable by any individual CA/AD vehicle acting alone.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
However, the combination of Blonder and Priev does not teach the following limitations,
an alarm indicates an event occurring within an industrial facility and that is based on a fixed sensor in the industrial facility, the fixed sensor being at a location along a route of one of the plurality of robot missions
However, this is taught by Gettings, which teaches that sensors can be placed around an industrial facility (Paragraph [0018], “FIG. 1 illustrates that a roaming sensor system 10 can be located in and operate in an environment 300, such as a building (as shown), campus of one or more indoor and outdoor areas, yard, transportation construct (e.g., road, bridge, tunnel, airport tarmac, train platform, seaport), or combinations thereof. The environment 300 can have exterior and interior walls 315a and 315b and doors 310. The environment 300 can have one or more sensors 12. The sensors 12 can be mounted and fixed to the ceilings, walls, floor, ground, windows, electrical outlets, data outlets (e.g., ethernet ports, wall-mounted audio ports), fixtures, movable objects/chattel (e.g., furniture, computers, appliances such as refrigerators, livestock), unmounted, unfixed, or combinations thereof.”) and that robots operate within the industrial environment in places alongside the location of those sensors (Paragraph [0037], “. For example, alarm signal response can be actively started, radiation level monitoring can run constantly, and robot battery charging can be scheduled. For example, a security patrol robot can monitor carpet cleanliness (e.g. in a hotel or office building), wear patterns, unsafe conditions, and chemical leaks (e.g. in an industrial environment) while also monitoring for security threats.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Blonder and Priev with the industrial and sensor context of Gettings, as this industrial operation of robots is a pressing concern (Paragraph [0002], “There are a number of challenges in operating a robot in conjunction with humans and buildings/environments. When multiple robots are available, the challenges can multiply significantly. Thus, there is a need in the robotics field to create a new system for managing robots and their interactions with buildings/environments and humans.”) and the alarm system of Gettings shares the concern with prioritization as found in Priev (Paragraph [0038], “The priority engine 90 can include one or more interrupt request (IR) signal inputs 95, an interrupt mask register 94, an interrupt request register 91, a priority resolver 92, an in-service register 93, and a controller 96. The controller 96 can instruct the robot to directly perform tasks.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art,.
Regarding Claim 25,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 21, Blonder further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback includes one or more of processing photograph information, determining an instrument reading from photograph information, comparing a sensor reading to a prior or expected sensor reading, and performing statistical analysis on mission feedback, (Paragraph [0172], “In particular, the analysis of the acquired inspection data may be done compared and/or with respect to the required inspection data as determined in step 104 to evaluate the compliance of the actually acquired inspection data with the computed required inspection data.” – where required data constitutes expected sensor readings, Paragraph [0062], “The mission parameters may include, for example, one or more viewpoints for capturing inspection data, specifically sensory data depicting the inspected asset(s) and/or part thereof, one or more capture angles for capturing the sensory data, one or more resolutions for capturing the sensory data, one or more access paths to the inspected asset(s) and/or the like.” and the inspection data itself is sensor data, Paragraph [0066], “The inspection data acquired by the selected capable autonomous vehicle(s) may include sensory data captured by the sensor(s) of the selected capable autonomous vehicle(s),” - and thus, by performing a comparison of the acquired and expected data, data analysis is performed)
wherein data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback is performed using machine learning or artificial intelligence analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions (Paragraph [0174], “Optionally, one or more ML models, for example, a neural network, an SVM and/or the like may be trained and learned to analyze the acquired inspection data to determine compliance, specifically, for quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability and/or the like of the acquired inspection data.”)
Regarding Claim 30,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Blonder further discloses the following limitation,
wherein data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback is performed using machine learning or artificial intelligence analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions (Paragraph [0174], “Optionally, one or more ML models, for example, a neural network, an SVM and/or the like may be trained and learned to analyze the acquired inspection data to determine compliance, specifically, for quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability and/or the like of the acquired inspection data.”)
Regarding Claim 41,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 35. Priev further already teaches the following limitations,
the selected robot performs the selected robot mission entirely upon completion of the conditional robot mission (Paragraph [0072], “Finally, from block 350, process 300 may proceed to block 360, where the vehicle undergoing the emergency may notify all responders that the emergency condition has ended (due to a successful response action), so that they may return to their normal operational mode.” – if there are no further requests for help, normal operation continues indefinitely, and thus completes any bounded missions assigned, e.g., the inspection tasks of Blonder)
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, further in view of Jannsen (WO 2013059513 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Jannsen.
Regarding Claim 33,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 28. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
further comprising: processing robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by a first robot interface, corresponding to a first robot type, prior to sending the robot mission control information for the selected robot to the selected robot
However, this is taught by Jannsen, which teaches the use of adapters for incoming and outgoing data (PDF Page 4, Lines 26-30, “the processor adapted to receive commands from the at least one client communication module, translate the received commands, and transmit the translated commands to the at least one robot communication module, wherein the communication between the common controller and the at least one client communication module is in a communication protocol foreign to the robot.” – where translation of data involves control and data adapters, see Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the Gateway module comprises a control adapter and a data adapter, PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”) including a robot interface to transmit control data (Figures 2 and 3, Robot Communication Modules 102, 202, 202B, where these modules contain particular interfaces 108, 208, 204B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fleet control of Blonder with the data translation of Jannsen, as doing so increases the range of available robots that can be overseen by a single fleet system, and further, the combination can be performed using methods known to one of ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 34,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Jannsen, as shown, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 33. Jannsen further already teaches the following limitations,
processing the robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by a first robot control adapter corresponding to the first robot type configured to transform common robot mission control information to the robot mission control information (PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”)
prior to processing the robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by the first robot interface (Figure 2, Figure 3, Robot Communication Modules 102, 202, 202B, where these modules contain particular interfaces for an associated robot, a la Robot Control radio 108, Robot Control radio 208, and Robot Control IR transceiver 204B)
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, further in view of Jones (US 20210325910 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Jones
Regarding Claim 37,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
the selected robot completes the selected robot mission from a point at which the selected robot mission was suspended
However, this is taught by Jones, which teaches that a UAV can take a detour for a conditional mission, and then resume a previous inspection route (Paragraph [0021], “UAV 300 deploys from an internal UAV hangar 402 of support vehicle 400, and flies an inspection route 201, subject to collision avoidance, at inspection site 102. … UAV 300 detects an anomalous condition 118 on tower 110. Anomalous conditions may include damage from storms (e.g., wind, hail, and lightning) and foreign objects, such as bird nests and wind-deposited debris. UAV 300 deviates from inspection route 201 to anomaly inspection route 204, based at least upon detecting anomalous condition 118, for further investigation (e.g., a closer image) of anomalous condition 118. UAV 300 then resumes inspection route 201.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection system of Blonder with the anomaly investigation as taught by Jones, as this allows for a UAV to dynamically inspect areas of interest while still completing assigned tasks, increasing the flexibility of the system (Paragraph [0019], “Aspects of the disclosure improve site management flexibility and speed data collection by reducing the dependence on work crew scheduling.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Claims 42, 43, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, further in view of Tan (US 20180001476 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Tan.
Regarding Claim 42,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, selecting a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the selected robot mission in cooperation with the selected robot based on the received mission feedback
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission
wherein neither the selected robot nor the second robot can perform all of the obtained features of the selected mission,
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information provided in future command messages to robotic machines, such as the sequences of sub-tasks contained in the command messages. Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 43,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 42. Tan further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein one of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to enable the other of the selected robot or the second robot to access a location of a step of the selected mission, and the other of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to perform the step (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”)
Regarding Claim 46,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 22. Priev further already teaches the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot: determining, by the selected robot, a revised robot mission in addition to the plurality of robot missions, based on the received mission feedback; (Figure 2A, Ad-Controllers 215 and 265 are both placed in a vehicle, through which the vehicles perform situation analysis and plan missions to suit their needs, the robots of the fleet are treated as essentially or at least potentially symmetrical in their evaluation abilities, and may help one another via their autonomous evaluations)
selecting, by the selected robot, a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the revised robot mission, … Paragraph [0071], “It is here noted that the responses received at block 320 may include suggestions for remedial action. If that is the case, then the ad-controller may select the most optimized/best proposal received.” – where the selected robot selects a second robot for assistance, and the second robot, which has been itself previously selected for another mission, aborts its own selected mission to perform the assistance with the selected robot)
instructing, by the selected robot, the second robot to perform the revised robot mission, (Paragraph [0071], “It is here noted that the responses received at block 320 may include suggestions for remedial action. If that is the case, then the ad-controller may select the most optimized/best proposal received.”)
However, the combination of Blonder and Priev does not teach the following limitations,
selecting, by the selected robot, a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the revised robot mission, in cooperation with the selected robot or in place of the selected robot, based on the received mission feedback; and
instructing, by the selected robot, the second robot to perform the revised robot mission, in cooperation with the selected robot or in place of the selected robot
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location…”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information … Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, further in view of Jannsen.
Regarding Claim 27,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 42. Blonder further already teaches the following limitations,
receiving second mission feedback for the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0172], “As shown at 116, which is an optional step, the mission engine 230 may initiate one or more additional inspection missions to acquire additional inspection data in case the acquired inspection data is incompliant, for example, partial, incomplete, insufficient, insufficiently accurate, under quality and/or the like.” – and further, because the mission management of Blonder is dynamic and recursive, there is mission feedback and additional second mission feedback.)
Priev already teaches the following limitation,
a second analysis result of the mission feedback from the second robot (Figure 2A, Ad-Controllers 215 and 265 are both placed in a vehicle, through which the vehicles perform situation analysis and plan missions to suit their needs, the robots of the fleet are treated as essentially or at least potentially symmetrical in their evaluation abilities, and may help one another via their autonomous feedback and analysis)
However, the combination does not disclose the following limitation,
wherein the controlling the selected robot to perform the selected robot mission is performed by way of robot mission control information for the selected robot mission sent to the selected robot via a control adapter configured to transform common mission control information to robot mission control information
wherein the mission feedback for the selected robot mission … is received from the selected robot via a data adapter configured to transform mission feedback gathered by the selected robot to a common data format
However, this is taught by Jannsen (PDF Page 4, Lines 26-30, “the processor adapted to receive commands from the at least one client communication module, translate the received commands, and transmit the translated commands to the at least one robot communication module, wherein the communication between the common controller and the at least one client communication module is in a communication protocol foreign to the robot.” – where translation of data involves control and data adapters, see Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the Gateway module comprises a control adapter and a data adapter, PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fleet control of Blonder with the data translation of Jannsen, as doing so increases the range of available robots that can be overseen by a single fleet system, and further, the combination can be performed using methods known to one of ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, further in view of Cunningham (US 20210174086 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Cunningham.
Regarding Claim 44,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, discloses all the limitations of Claim 42. Tan further already discloses the following limitation,
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission, (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”)
and wherein the first capability it an ability to obtain an image … and the second capability is an ability to lift the selected robot to a height … (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”),
However, the combination does not disclose the following limitation,
the first capability is an ability to obtain an image of a sensor,
lift a selected robot to a height of the sensor
However, this is taught by Cunningham, which teaches that a robot may take an image of a sensor (Abstract, “A mobile or wearable computing device comprises a camera, a processor coupled to the camera and configured with computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to activate the camera to capture an image and process the image so as to identify measurement data being displayed on an analog measurement instrument which is within the image captured by the camera” further in view of Paragraph [0029], “Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones can be equipped with a mobile device configured with an AMC application to perform image capture and associated processing. In some implementations, a UAV or drone can be equipped with an in-built camera and processor configured with an AMC application, dispensing with the need for a standalone mobile or wearable device.” – note that a UAV may achieve many different arbitrary heights to perform such a task)
Claims 47, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, further in view of Tan.
Regarding Claim 47,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the received mission feedback includes information relating to an object along a route for accessing a location of a step in the selected robot mission, a position of the object preventing the selected robot from accessing the location via the route
However, this is taught by Tan, which teaches that robots may detect and navigate around obstructions (Paragraph [0028], “The aerial robotic machine 102 also may use the imaging device 150 to detect the presence of obstructions between the grasping robotic machine 101 and the target object 132.” where obstacles can be detected and avoided, and this feedback is handled by a mission planner)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection robots of Blonder with the autonomous obstacle avoidance as taught by Tan, as this feature is likely implicit in Blonder, and further, this enables a dynamic robotic system to handle an environment without human supervision (Paragraph [0019], “The first and second robotic machines 101, 102 perform various sub-tasks autonomously, without direct control and/or supervision of a human operator.”)
Regarding Claim 48,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, selecting a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the selected robot mission in cooperation with the selected robot based on the received mission feedback
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission
wherein neither the selected robot nor the second robot can perform all of the obtained features of the selected mission,
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information provided in future command messages to robotic machines, such as the sequences of sub-tasks contained in the command messages. Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 49,
The combination of Blonder, Priev, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 48. Tan further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein one of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to enable the other of the selected robot or the second robot to access a location of a step of the selected mission, and the other of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to perform the step (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saad (US 20160155339 A1) discloses both protocol translation for transmission and reception (Paragraphs [0071-0073]), as well as health status reporting (Paragraph [0054]) and autonomous handling of mission data aboard each vehicle (Fig 3., Paragraph [0055]). Perko (US 20190019416 A1) discloses a first robot requesting assistance so that another robot can enable first robot to perform a mission step (Paragraphs [0046], [0052]). Alattas ("Analyzing Modular Robotic Systems,") discloses that a modular robot can detect a failed sensor in itself and replace it. Foster (US 20170192431 A1) teaches a mission planning system which generates a second mission plan (Paragraph [0005]). YOGESHA (US 20210407303 A1) teaches that a mission feedback can be collected data, control data, and environmental data, all used together (Paragraph [0060]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666